From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,83f4a82a69bb9c76 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Creation of storage pools Date: 1999/06/07 Message-ID: <7jhd6o$28e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 486790021 References: <374B411C.5EA8@sydney.gecm.com> <375B1A89.53E3@sydney.gecm.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.160.8.21 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 07 21:22:43 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686) Date: 1999-06-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <375B1A89.53E3@sydney.gecm.com>, Graeme Perkes wrote: > Is "for X'Storage_Pool use MY_Pool.all" really a GNAT bug? The > wording in RM95 13.11(15) indicates that a variable _name_ is > required. Nope, it doesn't say a variable name is required. It says "the _name_ in a Storage_Pool clause shall denote a variable." The terms don't mean what you think they do. "name" is defined in 4.1(2), and this definition includes explicit dereferences (i.e. something.ALL). "variable" is defined in 3.3(13) and basically refers to a view of an object that can be changed. 3.3(9) says that the result of dereferencing an "access-to-object" value (defined in 3.10(7)) is an "object". So if you string all this together, you find that "MY_Pool.all" is indeed a name that denotes a variable. (Unless I missed something else, not at all unlikely.) I suspect you were thinking that a "variable name" is the identifier that you declared in a variable object declaration. You have to be careful when reading the RM not to assume terms mean what they look like; often, the terms have formal definitions that don't quite match how we're used to thinking about them. I've stumbled across this a number of times; in fact, keeping in mind how I embarrassed myself last time I posted a question to c.l.a and didn't understand what one of the terms meant, I had to look up "denote" in the index to make sure I was understanding 13.11(15) correctly. -- Adam Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.